If Obama isn't careful he's going to have to start adding Packstan to the list of things over which he dithers.

If only Obama could find Bin Laden and sit down and talk it over, this whole middle-east thing could be solved, and the left could get back to the pressing matters of nationalizing other huge swaths of America.

Dithering sticks so well to obama because it is so accurate. Nervous indecisiveness: nervously confused indecisiveness in the face of alternative possible actions. It may not be perfect but it extremely close.

Ron Gibbs did a wonderful job of helping to stick the "dithering" label on his boss when he repeated the word to the White House press corps: "What Vice President Cheney calls dithering, President Obama calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform and to the American public."

Cheney's comment never would have gotten so much mileage in the media without Gibbs' assistance. What a pro, huh?

A good leader never makes a descision before it's time. He first gets counsel and facts and takes time to think about possibilities. But then an Executive has to execute and risk being told that he/she did not fear doing anything wrong like Monday morning QBs always tell him he should hane done. The clear reason Obama is avoiding a descision (a/k/a dithering)is that he has to chose among the lesser of two or three evils. He therefore refuses to commit himself until has reached his two real goals here at home which are: Nationalized Health Service and a USA economy Destroying/World Gvt. Funding Tax on oil, coal, and natural gas use. Frankly, he doesn't seem to give a damn about the outcome of the Afghan/Pakistan War. No wonder Mathew Hoh resigned.He is smart enough to see the real hopeless situation there rather than only seeing the political drama playing out here in the USA.

To those of us like AllenS, Roger J and I, in other words combat veterans, the concept of your commander dithering is truly frightening. There is absolutely nothing worse than no decision. even a bad decision is likely to be better.

Terms like "Thoughtful analysis" and "considering all the facts" may sound great to academics and Lawyers, but when metal meets meat, the right mode is the 80% solution, e.g.

A good decision, made on time, aggressively executed, is infinitely better than the 100% solution, made too late, and timidly applied.

Google is not precise enough to distinguish between a page containing the phrase "Obama is dithering," and one that contains "Obama says Bush is dithering."

But you, a law professor, can run a proximity search on LexisNexis for free. This should separate the coincidental uses from the deliberate ones -- without having to explain why you were wasting money goofing around.

But I found good fodder for the professor's "Obama is like Bush" tag. In the November Progressive, editor Matthew Rothschild's comment entitled "Obama Defends Bush Policies" shows how the Obama regime has had "a surprising willingness to perpetuate Bush's policies... essentially the entire edifice of repression that Bush and Cheney erected is still standing, with Obama's support."

As far as Afghanistan goes, we might as well withdraw now and stop the dithering. A hesitant decision in favor of military action is useless and ultimately destructive if the president lacks the backbone to stick with it.

Yes, I believe he is dithering his way to a historic victory on health care reform, a responsible, achievable strategy for Afghanistan/Pakistan; he will dither himself into a second term in 2012 and will continue to dither all over the red, weepy faces of frustrated right wingers for years to come.

Yes, I believe he is dithering his way to a historic victory on health care reform, a responsible, achievable strategy for Afghanistan/Pakistan; he will dither himself into a second term in 2012 and will continue to dither all over the red, weepy faces of frustrated right wingers for years to come.

Um no, the Dems will lose bad in 2010 and Obama will be thrashed out of office in 2012 by Queen Sarah.

What Drill Sgt said--and the sad thing about dithering is that it usually results in piecemeal commitment of military forces--great ditherers included George McClellan--which is why Lincoln chose Grant and Sherman

The forces are already committed piecemeal, but we were not facing a larger force anywhere until the last three months. So we must reinforce with 200,000 troops and support personel spread out among each separate valley battle area, or we must consolidate into the urban areas with a surrounding perimeter. This is Ft Apache style guerilla fighting, not large forces on an open plain.

These people who want to kill us are not stupid, at least in the sense that they can smell weakness. I'm sure that they believe, and I tend to think that they are right, any increase in casualties to our forces will lead to the likelihood that we will quit and run. Meanwhile, Obama is going to contemplate contemplation.

Montagne Montaigne almost thinks that Obama's dithering is a good thing. I think the ex military here know differently.

That said, my guess to the reason for his dithering is that President Obama has really never had to make a hard decision in his lifetime. Now he is being required to put American lives on the line with imperfect information.

What scares me, and I think a lot of people, is that that emboldens our enemies. Bush (43) was the "decider", and made bold decisions, based on, again, imperfect information. But, from 9/11/01 until he left office, we were safe, and part of the reason that we were safe from our enemies is that they knew that attacking us would lead to swift retribution with overwhelming force.

One problem with Obama dithering is that the last President who dithered at this level was Jimmy Carter, and our enemies seeing him as Carter II is not what we want.

So, I do hope he gets a backbone. Because if he doesn't, those enemies are going to do to us what they did to us under Carter.

Lincoln was not a man of impulse, and did nothing upon the spur of the moment; action with him was the result of deliberation and study. He took nothing for granted; he judged men by their performances and not their speech.

If a general lost battles, Lincoln lost confidence in him; if a commander was successful, Lincoln put him where he would be of the most service to the country.

"Grant is a drunkard," asserted powerful and influential politicians to the president at the White House time after time; "he is not himself half the time; he can't be relied upon, and it is a shame to have such a man in command of an army."

"So Grant gets drunk, does he?" queried Lincoln, addresing himself to one of the particularly active detractors of the soldier, who, at that period, was inflicting heavy damage upon the Confederates.

"Yes, he does, and I can prove it," was the reply.

"Well," returned Lincoln, with the faintest suspicion of a twinkle in his eye, "you needn't waste your time getting proof; you just find out, to oblige me, what brand of whiskey Grant drinks, because I want to send a barrel of it to each one of my generals."

Obama communist: Results 1 - 10 of about 6,620,000 for obama communist. (0.39 seconds) Obama is an idiot: 1 - 10 of about 7,910,000 for obama is an idiot. (0.22 seconds) Obama is a war criminal:Results 1 - 10 of about 20,100 for obam is a war criminal. (0.30 seconds) Obama is a traitorResults 1 - 10 of about 20,100 for obam is a war criminal. (0.30 seconds)

One can spend hours doing this. The reality is the movie prop president has jumped the shark. The house has released its version of the bogus health reform bill, 1990 pages. Skimming through the proposed tax hikes and employer mandates if enacted you can forget about a recovery. It will be 10% unemployment or worse until the communists are kicked out of the congress and the white house and the entire monstrosity is repealed. Lefties enjoy your moment. You are now at your peak. The next several elections will start the pendulum swinging in the opposite direction and that will result in a substantial roll back of the Great Society programs.

Don, the first time I heard "diddling" in that context was the lyric in Kinky Friedman's "They Ain't Makin' Jews Like Jesus Any More" i.e., "You just want to diddle a Christian girl and you killed God's only son."

Meh. I think if any of us were president we'd be dithering over Afghanistan right now.

He is on the horns of a genuine dilemma. The safer course, politically, is to give McChrystal what he wants. If it doesn't work, he can blame the military.

His administration made a mistake in trying to blame their dithering on Bush and Cheney, and it was predictable that Cheney would strike back viciously and memorably in defense of his people both in and out of government.

But challenging the strategy and tactics for Afghanistan? I'd be doing that too. He's mishandled the optics badly -- his WH staff is incompetent, flat out -- but he needs to keep turning over this particular rock for the good of the country. It's not cut and dried that what McChrystal wants to do is the best course. Biden being extremely wrong (blithering applies here) doesn't make McChrystal right.

So as an interesting strategy, I'd say this particular one doesn't have staying power.

Disagree. Because everyone knows a "ditherer" in their lives. Some call them procrastinators, a slacker, others say a "manana" Mexican, and so on.

And it is personal. Even ditherers profess exasperation, frustration about people they know whose dithering is inconvenient for them.

That said, many people elected Obama on the premise that he wouldn't be like LBJ or Dubya - rushing to escalate a war (LBJ), or rushing to broaden the mission past anything his military planned for or his allies consented to when they 1st joined a coalition (Dubya) "We will rebuild Iraq into a pro-Israel, pro-West nation the noble purple-fingered freedom loving Iraqis will love us for. And spare no amount of lives or costs to give them this gift.."

We had McCain, running on how he wanted to immediately escalate Afghanistan, openly talking about Joe Lieberman's and the Neocon's idea of "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran", even sending our troops to where the Germans last trod in the Caucuses for confronting Russia over thrashing "our freedom-loving Georgian friends" (after Georgia started a war with a Russian ally).

The dithering label may stick, but for now the people are OK with the President not blundering into what could be a repeat of Vietnam, the Soviet disaster in Afghanistan without a lot of thought and a lot of debate, 1st.

Even Iraq. Iraq was pretty bad for America - we ended Dubya's time with no allies left there, the Neocons slithering under their rocks, the Iraqi populace hating us, 1 trillion and 38,000 casualties spent, and the most popular Iraqi the guy who threw shit-smeared shoes at the clueless Bush.

There is good dithering and bad dithering. Nixon began de-escalating Vietnam about 9 months into office. Casualties went from tens of thousands to a few thousand in the next year, then down to hundreds, then dozens in the last year. Meanwhile, he did dither about forcing the Vietnamese who everyone knew were lying about Peace negotiations (and later admitted they were under orders to lie and stall) to consent to a Peace Treaty and release our POWs. Only after Nixon had realigned the Soviets and Chinese with diplomacy did he bomb the hell out of N Vietnam and force them to end the war and release our guys.He avoided the "humbling" the Democrat Congress did by stabbing S Vietnam in the back after Nixon was forced from office, or what humiliation Iranians inflicted on America 5 years later.

Nixon did good dithering.Carter did bad dithering.Lets hope Obama is like Nixon.

The "dithering" label is one of the reasons Obama went to Dover today and allowed himself to be photographed saluting a coffin. (Say what you want, Bush never made a photoop out of his meetings with parents of dead soldiers). He's dithering on Afghanistan, his numbers are tumbling and he needs to do something. A picture is powerful. It replaces the word "dither" with "caring and honorable." I'd like to give the prez the benefit of a doubt, that he actually does care about his dead troops, but nothing about him has indicated he cares about anything but himself, up to now...so it's hard.

While there are troubling aspects to McChrystal's strategy, at least he's got a plan. Biden has a plan, too. Kind of.

My concern is that Obama will just split the difference between McChrystal and Biden rather than settle on a single coherent strategy, which would be the worst of all possible worlds.

For example, the idea that's being floated out there of abandoning the countryside in order to protect the top 10 cities would be disastrous. Better to abandon the the whole country than attempt a half-measure like that.

Drill--don't know McChrystal--the current crop of CINCs is after my time--My inclination is to trust him--we will know in a hurry if the strategy is right and if it isnt Obama can be Lincoln and fire him--or conversely send him a barrel of whiskey if he's right.

Honestly I have no idea what I would do in A-stan--its a different animal than iraq--I would just like to see a decision rather than what impresses me as cheap photo ops at the expense of our dead soldiers. If the president had a sense of decency he would have gone to Dover without the phalanx of photographers. Would have meant much more to the families, I think. But thats just me.

Like many poor or inexperienced leaders on tough decisions, he is waiting for a better option to appear. It's like a gambler thinking the big win is just around the corner. In both cases it sometimes pays off, but the odds are strongly against it.

The value of a good ideology (based on history) is that it informs decisions when the information or options are insufficient to know you will be right. Obama's ideology is his failing.

Ha Ha, if Cheney is what you said Obama is a war criminal and he sought the position. Obama volunteered to be a war criminal. Wow, who'd a thunk it. Obama a war criminal. I don't think he minds though. I mean he is friends with terrorists Ayers and Dohrn. So no only did Obama volunteer to be a war criminal he is friends with terrorists.

Wow. More fun to be had. If fls is right then Obama is even more of a traitor. Why? We know he hates America and we know Cheney loves America. Wow. Traitor Obama. This is more fun than I thought it would be. Traitor Obama, the president who hates America. Obama a war criminal. Fun!

The Drill SGT said... To those of us like AllenS, Roger J and I, in other words combat veterans, the concept of your commander dithering is truly frightening. There is absolutely nothing worse than no decision. even a bad decision is likely to be better...

This Vet disagrees.

Sometimes the worst decisions in warfare are those of a bold, decisive leader like Haig, Hitler, Jap militarists infatuated with success. Or Churchill, or Dubya and the Neocon Cabal.

Haig gave us the Somme. 80,000 casualties in one day alone because Haig was in too much of a rush to deal with facts of previous battles the French had suffered had shown Haig's tactics of mass troops in the open against machine guns were bound to lead to mass butchery. So getting nuggets of gold from shit, we have the narrative of what heroes the Brits who were slaughtered without any chance of success were. Some nice poems, and the symbol of red poppies of Flanders. (and the beginning of the end of the British Empire as the best colonial troops were butchered.)

When Hitler was paying bitter fruit on his all or nothing gamble of Operation Barbarossa..as bold and decisive an example of military leadership as had been seen since Napoleon nearly wrecked Europe...all he could do was make worship of the heroism of the troops a near-obligatory thing for every citizen under National Socialism. Tojo and pals also had to resort to "troop veneration" when Yamoto's warning to them came true.

Bush and the Neocons - determined to get into Iraq ASAP - even without any plan for a postwar even considered - had to quickly embrace the "hero narrative". Using it indiscriminantly for hero government employees in uniform, hero passengers who tried to fight for their lives as cancer victims do, and of course the "hero troops" being butchered by the IEDs of the "freedom-lovers!!" they were there to save, whether the "freedom-lovers!!" wanted to be Occupied or not.

Or people who urged LBJ to be "bold and decisive" after the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Of course, some leaders have dithered when there is no option but taking urgent, prompt action. The Politburos dithering for three months after Hitler invaded almost cost them the war - until the Soviets agreed where and how to make their stands. There was really no choice but to take action after Iranians invaded our Embassy, but Carter decided he could do nothing to assert America because "that might mean more risk of harm to our Hero Hostages".

A good example of bold decisive leadership when no choice was there but to leave or fight was Reagan electing to leave Lebanon a month after we began shelling Shiite positions at the behest of Israel, and the Shiites then retaliated and butchered 240 Marines like helpless sheep.

Or Bush I, who had no choice but to push Saddam out of Kuwait. And put together a masterful coalition. And who wisely did not succumb to mission creep and "liberate the freedom-lovers!!" of Iraq or invade Lebanon and "deal with Our Special Friend's undemocratc enemies" - as some hawks urged..

"If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned," he said in a speech in Washington. "And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan."

Make a fucking decision. Can you grasp that? If Obama is going to keep troops in that shit hole, provide the military with what they think they need to complete the operation. What's going on at the present time, ain't cuttin it. I want Obama to stand up and act like he's got a pair.

What's difficult about Afghanistan is the current conventional wisdom about American involvement in foreign wars doesn't apply there. We're never going to "win." At some point, we're going to have to make a judgment that we've buried the Taliban deeply enough that they won't spring back to life as soon as we leave. And we'll probably always have some forces there. Very different situation than Iraq. But there are also short-run considerations that argue for a surge to regain momentum.

Very tough. Like I said, Obama has handled it poorly, like an amateur, but that doesn't change the fact that even an ideally suited president would find this much simpler.

You make good points but I think what Drill is getting at is we're there now, McChrystal has made his recommendation and its either shit or get off the pot time. Yeah Haig gave us the Somme because he acted boldly but Clark gave us Anzio cause he sat on his ass.

McChrystal could do a reversal of Lincoln-McClellan meeting and ask Obama if he could borrow some of the Army for awhile.

Hoosier - Some things in life aren't that difficult. Then again I remind myself this guy took months to name his frigging dog.

It is funny, but the whole rigamarole about selecting what kind of dog he'd get, then naming the poor beast will actually end up impacting people's perception of Obama as he weighs the awful perception of being a ditherer against being seen as a reckless idiot who takes bold decisive action.

"I will suspend my campaign and return to DC to help straighten out this mess. This is a time for John McCain's bold decisive leadership. What will I do? I dunno - math and economic stuff is hard, you know.."

"Hey, I am the Deciderer! Let's stay and nation-build so the noble Iraqis will love us! No debate! I've decided we will!"

We're never going to "win." At some point, we're going to have to make a judgment that we've buried the Taliban deeply enough that they won't spring back to life as soon as we leave.

We'll win when we finally realize that the nation is a polyglot of tribes who aside from knowing how to use 21st century weaponry, still have an 11th century mindset and treat them accordingly.

You find the biggest tribe and bribe them. Tell Mustapha that we'll keep him in greenbacks as long as he stays our bought bitch, sends us scalps of verified Islamofascist terrorists and don't harbor anyone that wants to attack us. Step off and we bankroll Mohammed over there and back him up with some nice hi tech weaponry and you end up as a brown stain on a cave wall. Did it before, can do it again. Rinse and repeat.

Those examples were generally, high diddle diddle straight up the middle sorts of attacks. that didn't have to be made.

The situation in A-stan is more like reaction after ambush. We are in a killing zone. Most any decision has a chance of being better than dithering under fire.

The A-stan call is a tough one. I don't think its really a country, just a collection of tribes, but Obama campaigned on his secret plan and announced it in March. Its time to implement a plan or surrender the country to the Taliban or be prepared to accept that it is "Obama's Quagmire". It isn't Bush's any longer.

AKA the British Raj approach, though your second phase was called "Butcher and Bolt".

if the tribes got uppity and attacked the lowlanders, you marhed up, slaughtered the families, and burned villages, then marched out again. 20 more years of peace until the tribe bred up again, unless their neighbors decided it was time to exterminate them of course.

It was a passable soution for its time. CNN unfortunately would not let you do it this time, so your method might work instead.

Cedarford - Somme, an operation that was planned over the course of 6 months by the combined British and French general staffs, was hardly an example of impetuous decision-making on Haig's part. The fact that it failed can be attributed to just about everything but hasty decision-making.

As to your larger point - How long do you think Obama can let the situation drift before he decides what he wants to do? Would there ever be a point where ihis thoughtfulness becomes a negative? I think we're already there, but I'm curious what your timetable would look like.

"If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned," he said in a speech in Washington. "And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan."

The problem is a lot has changed in 1 year. Major concerns have arisen about the corruption of the Potemkin regime we installed 8 years ago that has little influence outside Kabul, where they are protected by US troops and Afghans on the US payroll.

Plus - There are 3 logistics paths into Afghanistan if Obama decides to escalate. Needed so our troops are not cut off, then destroyed. One path in Pakistan is compromised as Taliban are decimating supply convoys in. And by a populace of growing anti-Americanism that may reach a political point where they will have the power to refuse US access through Pakistan. The other two are Iran and Russia, nations that McCain wanted to escalate conflict with. One, Iran, is impossible for logistics even under Obama. The other puts the entire war effort at Putin's mercy if Pakistan goes sour.

In a sense, this is far worse than Vietnam, at least from a logistics standpoint. And logistics wins or loses wars. With Vietnam, we had stable sea lane access, air bases ringing Vietnam in friendly countries. Allies in Australia, S Korea, the Philippines - that gave us material support and tens of thousands of troops.

Do we really want to be in a position of having 100,000 or so of our troops at the mercy of Putin and Daddy Bhutto whims? With no reliable local troops and Euro-weenies whining about adding even a few thousand extra troops and then only committing to another year there?This adds to how difficult a decision this will be for Obama...and what gain do we expect? Creation of Afghans into a modern nation of Freedom-Lovers?? Keep AQ from being as safe there as they could be in a dozen other failed Muslim countries we aren't talking about invading and nation-building?

Thank you, Drill Sgt: "'considering all the facts' may sound great to academics and Lawyers, but when metal meets meat, the right mode is the 80% solution, e.g.

A good decision, made on time, aggressively executed, is infinitely better than the 100% solution, made too late, and timidly applied."

This discussion reminds me of the chapter in "Band Of Brothers" where the sarge with connections but no experience is the one that has to lead his men into battle. Once he gets them out there, he freezes and has to think, as "metal meets meat" all around him. In the show, the troops are lucky that THAT ditherer quickly gets replaced. Will 2012 get here fast enough?

It was a passable soution for its time. CNN unfortunately would not let you do it this time, so your method might work instead.

That may not be a problem for all that much longer though, given how CNN's ratings continue to plummet. It seems that there is really only room for one cable news network beholden to a Democratic President, and MSNBC seems to have that sewn up, due to their obsequious coverage of anything Obama (including Chris Matthews' tingle). CNN had that role sewn up with Clinton, but almost seemed like tried to be a little less in the tank for the President, and got beat out by the competition. No wonder Ted Turner is trying to get control back to turn his baby around.

Cedarford: "The problem is a lot has changed in 1 year. Major concerns have arisen about the corruption of the Potemkin regime we installed 8 years ago that has little influence outside Kabul, where they are protected by US troops and Afghans on the US payroll."

Corruption? Are you serious? Anyone who has looked at that shit hole of a country, a country, by the way that a foreign entity created, should have known that they are not virtuous, and least of all democratic. That does not give Obama a pass. Obama was the one who wanted to give the appearance that he had a yard of dick, and a bag full of balls. People are now calling his bluff, and he doesn't look good.

Cedarford, your suggestion that the fact there are three (actually four as we have airlift) routes into Afghanistan is moot. We have 68,000 troops now in the fight and Obama added 20,000.

Obama sacked a 4-star and installed McChrystal while publicly supporting the proposed, but then unwritten, COIN strategy. Now he's "considering or dithering" (take your choice) on supporting the COIN strategy. The time for all his serious thinking was back in April. The delay is he's painted into a corner and there's no way he can choose "present".

Cedarford, you choose an interesting set of campaigns to highlight the pros/cons of taking one's time in decision-making. Gallipoli, the invasion of Russia, the Somme, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 - all those were made in deliberate manner over a matter of months. And each proved expensive or disasters. That supports Obama's "deliberate approach" how?

AllenS - That does not give Obama a pass. Obama was the one who wanted to give the appearance that he had a yard of dick, and a bag full of balls. People are now calling his bluff, and he doesn't look good.

The problem is that the possibility of another Vietnam trumps WANTING another Vietnam just so a slick-talking guy in the Oval Office will look bad from it.

====================Bob - Bob said... Cedarford, your suggestion that the fact there are three (actually four as we have airlift) routes into Afghanistan is moot. We have 68,000 troops now in the fight and Obama added 20,000.

That we managed to put just short of 100,000 troops there and barely support them adequately at huge cost (burning out airframe life of thousands of transport planes, costing us billions extra to use air or Pakistani ground supply) does not mean it is wise to keep them there as danger of cut off supply paths mount...and you are effectively tossing the whole prospect of success or failure onto the whim of Vladimir Putin or Pakistan's unstable "husband of Bhutto" regime.

Before "things changed" it was possible for the Japs to place several hundred thousand troops, well supplied, in places thousands of miles from the Japanese Archipelago. Once we cut their logistics by sea power and island-hopping air base interdiction of sea lanes - those hundreds of thousands of troops went unsupplied and became royally fucked.

And if logistics did get cut off with Pakistan, what would Obama have to do? He needs to weigh the possibilities of that, the collapse of the Karzai Kleptocracy, and many other factors...begining with "Why are we there?"

Way unfair to Fabius the Cunctator. He had clear strategy of slow-bleeding Hannibal rather than accepting a battle he would lose.. He stuck to it when it was unpopular and he was very successful with it.

If Obama wins on healthcare with his slow non-proposal strategy then maybe you could compare that. But I kind of doubt that will happen.

In Myers Briggs Personality Tests, I would venture a guess that Obama would be an ENTP. That is the pattern of those who would "Imagine the possibilities"! Or so say their detractors.

Basically, this personality type is always looking for more data to evaluate before they make the BIG decision. When they make a decision, it is usually well thought out and reasoned six ways to Sunday.

People with this pattern are valuable members of anyone's team, but are not likely to end up in a position that requires fast decisions. For example, they would make poor first line supervisors or small business owners. On the other hand, they would be EXCELLENT community organizers.

In Myers Briggs Personality Tests, I would venture a guess that Obama would be an ENTP. That is the pattern of those who would "Imagine the possibilities"! Or so say their detractors.

Hey, I am an ENTP. That apparently means that I should have been a community organizer, or, shudder, an attorney.

I might suggest though that President Obama may be actually more an INTP. For one thing ENTPs act more quickly than INTPs. He just doesn't seem to get charged up by people, but rather, seems to need alone time or time with just his wife/family. All those date nights with his wife are more an INTP thing than an ENTP thing.

This is not being thoughtful - it just does not take that long since the military strategists have done that for years already and he would not be qualified to help with it.

Waiting for a better option to appear when there are no good ones has it's appeal, but I think in war with enemies working to deter you ,you just end up with less options, not more. Not to mention giving them time to plan and prepare.

You make some excellent points, Bruce. Of course Myers Briggs is a sort of sliding scale. He might be just on the line between an extrovert and introvert. Hard to imagine a true introvert, or high "I" running for the presidency. I suspect that his "P" is sky high. The man has no need for closure.

Which just might be a good thing. Especially for those of us who think politicians generally serve us best when they do nothing at all.

To reinforce or not to reinforce-- that is the question:Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to sufferThe metal rings and narrows of torn pages (binder) fortuneOr to take alarms against a “B” or “D” grade of troublesAnd by licking append them. To not stickie, to sleep--

there once was a prez in a capital hamletwho couldn't decide jack without an amuletoh he rubbed it quite vigorouslyusually it wouldn't guide ambiguouslywell he felt good, but the decision went either way, damn it

I've said this before, but it bears repeating. If you think the surge was meant to bring mostly permanent stability to Iraq, then it's too soon to tell if it worked. Certainly in the short term, it worked. Long term? Can't tell.

Fred4Pres @10:16AM on Wed has the careful, well-thought, decisive strategy The One has crafted for the real battle.

Forget the Military lessons of wars gone by.

What matters now

is fretting about Corzine and the New Jersey Governor's race

to which I'd add Virginia & NY-23.

If The Dems win these (I say ACORN & it’s Honor Roll of dead voters puts Corzine over the top in Jersey), The One will feel strong enough to take a decisive strike against our real enemy: Talk Radio & FOX News.

"Rightly to be greatIs not to stir without great argumentBut greatly to find quarrel in a strawWhen honor's at the stake."

Or as someone said about Bush & Iraq, “The heat of international crises cry out for cool-headed analysis, ways of doping out the philosophic subtext beneath the furor of partisan passions; to reduce unwieldy abstractions and glittering generalities (God, National Security, Democracy, Oppression) into the lucid paradigms one encounters in the work of writers such as….”, well, if this silly were writing now I’m sure he’d say "Bill Ayres & Saul Alinsky!"

Don't even get me started on the NJ governor's race. Any chance that Cristie had to win was immediately dashed by the well-intentioned nice guy running as an independent.

There really are a lot of angry citizens here, but now the "angry" votes will be split between Christie and Daggett, the independent, and Corzine should win handily.

Of course it DOES help that Corzine had the money to outspend his opponent 3 to 1, that he was assisted in the campaign by Obama and a White House team, and that NJ is rapidly approaching the point of no return in the numbers of people who work for the state or federal government, or unions, when you add spouses of the above into the mix. And I am not even adding in all those independent private business owners who long ago figured out who is easier to bribe to get those lucrative government contracts. Oh! I almost forgot to add in all those who are NOT working, but live off the largess of welfare programs.

If Daggatt cared about this state, he would withdraw before the election.

NJ is rapidly approaching the point of no return in the numbers of people who work for the state or federal government, or unions, when you add spouses of the above into the mix. And I am not even adding in all those independent private business owners who long ago figured out who is easier to bribe to get those lucrative government contracts. Oh! I almost forgot to add in all those who are NOT working, but live off the largess of welfare programs.